[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201205205900.GD643756@sasha-vm>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:59:00 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:08:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 04/12/20 16:49, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:27:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be
>>>>dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply)
>>>>so the burden on maintainers is minimal.
>>>
>>>The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable".
>>>That
>>
>>They're not, though. Some forget, some subsystems don't mark anything,
>>some don't mark it as it's not stable material when it lands in their
>>tree but then it turns out to be one if it sits there for too long.
>
>That means some subsystems will be worse as far as stable release
>support goes. That's not a problem:
>
>- some subsystems have people paid to do backports to LTS releases
>when patches don't apply; others don't, if the patch doesn't apply the
>bug is simply not fixed in LTS releases
Why not? A warning mail is originated and folks fix those up. I fixed a
whole bunch of these myself for subsystems I'm not "paid" to do so.
>- some subsystems are worse than others even in "normal" releases :)
Agree with that.
>>>(plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start
>>>and end. I don't see the need to second guess them.
>>
>>This is similar to describing our CI infrastructure as "second
>>guessing": why are we second guessing authors and maintainers who are
>>obviously doing the right thing by testing their patches and reporting
>>issues to them?
>
>No, it's not the same. CI helps finding bugs before you have to waste
>time spending bisecting regressions across thousands of commits. The
>lack of stable tags _can_ certainly be a problem, but it solves itself
>sooner or later when people upgrade their kernel.
If just waiting with fixing issues is ok until a user might "eventually"
upgrade is acceptable then why bother with a stable tree to begin with?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists